SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 26, 2010 14:22:18 GMT -5
We're likely to play small unless someone forces the issue (Henry, Nate or Moses). Talent, history, coaching preference, etc., all lean that way.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Jul 26, 2010 14:31:38 GMT -5
We're likely to play small unless someone forces the issue (Henry, Nate or Moses). Talent, history, coaching preference, etc., all lean that way. this is right. which means we are fkd on the boards and interior D.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 26, 2010 14:35:15 GMT -5
Yep. Which is why I've been so silent about this year. Austin and Chris can score; we're not stopping many people this year unless the other bigs really surprise.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 26, 2010 15:01:17 GMT -5
If III is stubborn enough to play small again--this team will get their ass kicked like the previous 2 years--due to no rebounding/defense. He also should catch hell for it--because 3 yrs in a row of doing something that doesn't work--no matter what way you measure success is ignorant.
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Jul 26, 2010 15:09:42 GMT -5
If III is stubborn enough to play small again--this team will get their ass kicked like the previous 2 years--due to no rebounding/defense. He also should catch hell for it--because 3 yrs in a row of doing something that doesn't work--no matter what way you measure success is ignorant. I agree with this to a degree. This year we have the weapons (still young). We have to try and find a way to use them. No excuses.
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Jul 26, 2010 16:05:48 GMT -5
|
|
blueandgray
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,766
|
Post by blueandgray on Jul 26, 2010 16:25:41 GMT -5
If playing Dajuan at the 4 was terrible, playing Hollis there would be a disaster. Heck, Hollis didn't even play the 4 in high school. If nate is as good as advertised all this is moot.
That said, I do hope that III uses the incredible depth he has in the backcourt by ratcheting up our defensive pressure, employing full court pressure and half court traps, and going to the bench more for fresh legs.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jul 26, 2010 16:37:10 GMT -5
RDF has been right about this for a long time. If we continue to go with the small lineup that can't defend this team is at best destined to be a 10-8, 9-9 at best 11-7. By the time the BE rolls around in January i expect to see Hollis firmly planted at the 3 spot and Jason first off the bench. Frankly i think III should catch hell now for a certain player who provides nothing but promise defensively but shown zero development of defensive skills.
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by mapei on Jul 26, 2010 16:47:29 GMT -5
Hollis would be a phenomenal 3. But I don't see Jason not starting, so that pushes Austin again to the 3. We're definitely going to have problems this year against teams with talented bigs. Julian can't do it by himself and is going to have foul issues with little help.
I do think Nate can be a long-range solution at the 4, but probably not soon. He reminds me of sophomore Julian, which isn't bad but senior Julian is a lot better.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 26, 2010 16:50:31 GMT -5
I'm going to get to this when I get a real second on HP (and meant to do so months ago), but there's a real issue now and there's no easy answer. It was one thing when the weighting was Julian Vaughn and 10-15 minutes of frosh/Sims v Jason/Hollis minutes. Size can overcome natural talent there. But now it's 40 minutes of frosh/Sims (no Vaughn in this tradeoff) versus Clark/Hollis. How does that math work? Is being big good enough? Are the frosh even in the range of quality (i.e. Vaughn last year) to make this a debate? Or are they not good enough to push the issue of playing incredibly small?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 26, 2010 16:55:12 GMT -5
We have no clue what the starting line up will be at the start of the season and not at the start of the big east season. If we indeed go small and it indeed does not work, then yes III will deserve criticism.
Last year Henry looked dominant all the times I saw him in kenner league. III was expecting him to start. It didn't happen. Maybe Nate will be ready to step in at the 4. We won't know until it happens.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Jul 26, 2010 17:01:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately, you could easily argue that 7 of our 8 best players next season will be perimeter players. I'd still rather go big but I suspect that the roster is going to struggle to produce anywhere near 80 BE quality minutes at PF and C next year.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jul 26, 2010 17:37:17 GMT -5
i don't care a lick about looking for more offense on this team. I want some players who can actualy get tough defensively and get stops. This team has shown the ability to run and score with anyone they play. They have not shown the ability to defend.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,795
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 26, 2010 17:44:27 GMT -5
If we indeed go small and it indeed does not work, then yes III will deserve criticism. This is not my point, or even concern. My concern is going small is the right decision. Yes, III has shown some tendencies to play too small. But it's really problematic if we're playing small, and it's the right decision. Because we'll never be all that good playing Hollis at the 4, IMO.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jul 26, 2010 17:50:17 GMT -5
I dont think Hollis should see much time at the 4 unless necessary or if there is an specific advatage. I want him starting at the 3 becuase it a much better team defensively both at the 2 and the 3 with Freeman .
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Jul 26, 2010 18:07:57 GMT -5
I'm going to be a little different and argue that having a "traditional" 4-5 on the floor is NOT the answer to our defensive problems and that against certain opponents going small IMPROVES our defense.
I didn't see us getting burned on many post moves or even many dribble drives. What I did see (particularly in the Ohio, 2nd Rutgers and Notre Dame games) was when a team had big men with 3pt range everything seemed to go to hell when Julian/Greg/Henry or whoever had to lung desperately to the perimeter just to get a hand in some 6'6" guy's face. When we were able to shut down long ranged bigs like in the Duke or 2nd Nova games (either that or they had off nights) we tended to do well.
Hollis defending a 4 like Rick Jackson is a farce but nowadays guys like him are a rarity. If the opponent has a PF who likes to play as, say, DaJuan did then Hollis is the best guy on the team for that role.
I think both Hollis and Jason start at the beginning and will continue to start until it proves that it doesn't work or Henry/Nate prove themselves to be too valuable to be bench guys
|
|
BigmanU
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 915
|
Post by BigmanU on Jul 26, 2010 18:31:36 GMT -5
Was it the 08' season Ewing Jr started the year as the starter??? As the year wore on he became the six man and excelled as the closer of games. Hopefully the same applies to Jason.
Julian,Nate (Hopefully or Henry to start the season),Hollis,Austin, & Chris.
Jason however should definately get starters minutes. I beleive during games matchups will dictate this.
Example: Owens replacing Hibbert in and out of the lineup in 05 and/or 06'
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Jul 26, 2010 18:40:46 GMT -5
Was it the 08' season Ewing Jr started the year as the starter??? As the year wore on he became the six man and excelled as the closer of games. Hopefully the same applies to Jason. Julian,Nate (Hopefully or Henry to start the season),Hollis,Austin, & Chris. Jason however should definately get starters minutes. I beleive during games matchups will dictate this. Example: Owens replacing Hibbert in and out of the lineup in 05 and/or 06' Half of that was PE Jr just being better as an energy bench guy, half was that as a freshman Austin was clearly far too good to keep out of the starting 5. Very similar situation as this year, come to think of it. We spent a lot of time that summer trying to think of ways to replace our best player and many of us (myself included) believed that Pat could replicate many of the things that Jeff did as a 4 but it didn't happen. Then all of a sudden we have a guy like DaJuan as the 4 and Austin at the 3 and we've been a "small ball" team ever since.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Jul 26, 2010 19:02:48 GMT -5
We still be bigs by committee according to III
|
|
gujake
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 831
|
Post by gujake on Jul 26, 2010 20:02:37 GMT -5
VC - I understand what you're getting at, but I think a lot of people tend to have selective knowledge when it comes to bigs defending on the perimeter because it just looks horrible. People used to complain ALL the time when Roy Hibbert was defending bigs like that who could shoot... and hell JT3 even took him out of the game a lot of times when matchups like that happened. But if you look at the numbers, it's not even close. Roy's shot-blocking ability and his help defense was WAY more important that the downside that he was slow on the perimeter.
We got KILLED on dribble drives last year. KILLED. And not only because our guards were getting beat all the time, but because when they did get beat, they scored. We didn't have enough trees to stop them.
|
|